350 



• 



"Wallich when distributing the herbarium collection of the East 

 India Company {Wall. Cat. Lith. n. 5108). The specimen to 

 which this name is given was collected by Bottler in Travancore 

 in October, 1814; the field-note is inscribed : — " may be perhaps 

 an autumnal state of D. oppositifolia, Linn., though the descrip- 

 tion does not tally." Another note attached to the specimen, 

 also in Bottler's handwriting, bears the words " an D. sativa? " 

 With this plant Wallich associated in his distribution six other 

 gatherings (n. 5108 13-G) that do not now concern us, because , 



Wallich does not vouch for their absolute identity with Bottler's 

 plant. Fortunately there is no doubt as to what Bottler's 

 I), sativa is, because Hooker has made it the type of the male 

 portion oiD. Wallichii, Hook, t (Flor. Brit. hid. vol. vi. p. 295). 

 Since 1892, when Hooker's description was published, the species 

 has been collected again by Bourdillon in Travancore, where it 

 is known as Katu-kaUjiL This name is one used by Bheede 

 [ILort. Malab. vol. vii. p. 69. i. 36) for a female Dioscorea in- 

 cluded by Linnaeus (Sp. PI. ed. 1. p. 1033) under D. bulbifera. 

 We know that the Katu-katsjil is not J), bulbifera, Linn. [1], 

 because the basis of the Linnean species is a plant with stems 

 twining to the left, with reflexed capsules that are longer than 

 broad, and with seeds that are winged at the top only, whereas 

 Katu-katsjil has, as Bheede's figure shows, stems that twine to 

 the right and capsules that point forward and are rather broader 

 than they are long; its seeds, as Bheede's description implies, 

 are winged all round. The only difference between the Katu- 

 katsjil as figured by Bheede, and D. Wallichii as described by 

 Hooker, lies in the presence of axillary bulbils in Bheede's plant; 

 -o far we have found no trace of axillary bulbils in any of the 

 numerous specimens of D. Wallichii examined by us. What is 

 more often overlooked is that Bheede has figured and described as 

 Kattti'kelengv (Hart. Malab. vol. vii. p. 71. t. 37) the male of the 

 species of which Katu-katsjil is the female, the only difference 

 between the two, apart from the sexual one, being that in Kattu- 

 helenau the stem is sparingly prickly, in Katu-katsjil it is un- 

 armed. This circumstance has induced Linnaeus to regard 

 Kattu-kelenau as the ba^is of Ins D. aculeata (Sp. PI. ed. 1. 

 p. 1033). In D. Wallichii , Hook, f., which nowadays certainly 

 bears the name Katu-katsjil, w r e find that prickles may be present 

 or absent in either sex, and this character, notwithstanding the im- 

 portance attached to it by Linnaeus, is in many other species of 

 equallv slight significance. The character afforded by the presence 

 of axillary bulbils, so clearly shown in both of Bheede's plates and 

 so definitely insisted upon in Bheede's two descriptions, cannot, 

 however, be disregarded. Nowhere in India have we been able 

 to find a Dioscorea that agrees, as D. Wallichii does in every 

 other respect, with the species figured by Bheede (I.e. tt. 36, 37) 

 and at the same time produces axillary bulbils. If this character 

 supplied by Bheede be strictlv accurate, D. aculeata, Linn. [1] 

 and D. WaUichii, Hook, f., must be accepted as specifically 

 distinct. The adoption of this conclusion would, however, 

 involve the acceptance of the hvpothesis that since 1G88 the in- 

 cidence of the vernacular name Katu-katsjil has been altered. 

 Students acquainted only with western peoples can point to 



